>an electron has never been observed. >you believe in it

>>7795092
>how do computers work
>what are electron microscopes
>what is electricity
>how do old rectifiers work
>what is an electron gun
>what is thermoionic emission

>>an electron has never been observed.
>what are solvated electrons

>>7795107
cont.
>how do chemical reactions occur
>how does a capacitor work
>what creates electromagnetic waves
>how are x-rays generated
>why does phosphorus on old tvs glow
>how does a magnetron work
>what is a coulomb explosion
>how do lasers work
>how do transformers work
>how does a transistor work
>why does metal conduct electricity
>how come chemical reactions can release and store energy
>what is the thermoelectric effect

>>7795107
All good questions about phenomenon in the natural world. I assume you have a hypothesis that some magical little "electron" particle is behind it all? Why don't you go observe an electron and validate your hypothesis.

>>7795117
We observe and measure it everyday. It's proven already.

>>7795118
>We observe and measure it everyday

We've never observed an electron

>>7795117
>phenomenon in the natural world
>settling for that explanation
you are no better than those religious folk who are fine with the answer "because god intended it"

also, most of the things on the list have been made by man. how is it possible that we can measure them and apply them to your electronics when they're all just random natural phenomenon????

>>7795120
Yes we have dumbfuck. You're trying to say we've never photographed them. We observed, measured and proved electrons centuries ago.

>>7795120
>take some liquid anhydrous ammonia
>put alkali metal in it
>observe electrons floating in solution

>>7795125
>You're trying to say we've never photographed them

We've never observed them through any method.

>>7795131
see
>>7795130

>>7795131
> we haven't observed wind in any way
> so wind isn't proven
:^)

>>7795130
>I say there are electrons therefore there are.

Are you truly this stupid? Just because some science textbook tells you that atoms have electrons doesn't mean scientists have ever observed one.

>>7795134
Wind is made of molecules, we have directly observed atoms and molecules by bouncing light off of it. Can't say the same for your imaginary electrons.

>>7795131
>We've never observed them through any method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP5HL1VTSr8

>>7795120
>We've never observed an electron

Yes we have. I know you're trying to be a smart ass by nitpicking over what 'observation' means, but I'll spell it out for you.

An 'electron' is essentially a word we use to describe a particle that has a negative charge, exists in a shell around the nucleus of atoms, and carries a given mass. We've observed all four of those characteristics, therefore an 'electron' (in the sense that we've described it) exists.

>>7795137
>by bouncing light off of it
>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/>>>/x/
back to your containment board

>>7795135
drink it and see what happens :^)

>>7795137
> wind is made of molecules
Wind is a mechanical wave retard. It's the transfer of energy, it's not matter.

I can't tell if you're trying to troll or an underage jizzstain trying to act like you know jack shit.

>>7795139
Cool vapor. Where are the electrons?

>>7795140
>An 'electron' is essentially a word we use to describe a particle

And that particle has never been observed. It makes for a nice hypothesis though.

ITT: two gullible fucks getting baited so hard
just let this thread die

>>7795092

Electron is just a name.

Theory and experimental data show that some particle with a rest mass of 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg, a charge of -e, spin of 1/2...etc, all these properties, has to and does exist. The whole field of chemistry is based on this particle.

So you can call it electron, zackefron, bird, XxX, skittles, whatever the fuck you want but it does exist

>>7795147
electrons are measured, not observed.
otherwise prove it or shut up

>>7795148
>experimental data show that some particle

It's never been observed. That data is useless if you assume that some particle exists then use it to explain natural phenomenon.

>>7795145
>And that particle has never been observed.

Have you ever observed an atom of carbon? If so, by what means?

File: boy-and-atom.jpg (68KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x360px

>>7795165
Same way I observe anything, bouncing light off of it

>>7795167
wtf is this ? metal balls ?

>>7795167
>Same way I observe anything, bouncing light off of it

Okay, the fact that the light is bouncing off of it is representative of the fact that it's being absorbed and emitted, which is a process mediated by electrons.

If you're gonna try socratic questioning, at least avoid blatant tautologies like that.

>>7795143

>Wind is a mechanical wave retard. It's the transfer of energy, it's not matter.

Dude it's literally the large scale movement of air.

>>7795169
>which is a process mediated by electrons.

Nice hypothesis, maybe you should prove they exist before claiming as fact that they are how atoms interact with light.

>>7795170
yes...AKA a mechanical wave...

>>7795171
>Nice hypothesis, maybe you should prove they exist before claiming as fact that they are how atoms interact with light.

That image you just posted isn't recorded on film. It's calculated using information provided by atomic theory, which, guess what, includes electrons.

I guess carbon doesn't exist!!!! /s

>>7795173
Atoms exist, and we know that because we can observe them by bouncing light off them. Just because some parts of atomic theory are true and provable doesn't mean all of it is. That's like saying Genesis is real because Jerusalem is a real place.

>>7795175
How do you explain the rest of atomic interactions without electrons ? How do you explain the atomic number and the difference between elements without electrons ?

File: Krauss-2-1024x558.png (112KB, 712x490px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 712x490px

>>7795176
How do you explain the origin of life without God? How do you explain the universe without the flying spaghetti monster?

This is what you sound like.

Pic related

>>7795176
It may well be true that electrons turn out to exist. But claiming they exist just because they explain a natural phenomenon is retarded. Observe it first!

>>7795175
>Atoms exist, and we know that because we can observe them by bouncing light off them

Okay, your reasoning here is that there must be 'something' because light is being affected by 'something'.

Atoms carry charges at times, which isn't explained by any other part of atomic theory.

When you create something called a cathode ray, you end up with something that is definitely not an atom, but can be detected because it creates charges when it collides with things. It interacts with electromagnetic fields and can have its own mass measured, which is far less than any atom.

If you're going to conclude that an atom is 'something' because light is being affected by 'something', then electrons must be 'something' because 'something' is being affected by an electromagnetic field in the way that we predict.

>>7795179
that quote is almost a word for word rip-off of something that Feynman said decades earlier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1RqTP5Unr4

>>7795183
>Atoms carry charges at times, which isn't explained by any other part of atomic theory.

Ah, I see. Well if we take everything in atomic theory as fact, including electrons, I see now that it is quite easy to see how electrons have been observed! Thank you for enlightening me.

>>7795185
>Well if we take everything in atomic theory as fact, including electrons, I see now that it is quite easy to see how electrons have been observed!

I'm not treating atomic theory as an axiom in my reasoning. Re-read what I wrote.

>>7795183
>If you're going to conclude that an atom is 'something' because light is being affected by 'something', then electrons must be 'something' because 'something' is being affected by an electromagnetic field in the way that we predict

Wat. How would you know the electrons are affected if you can't even observe them?

>>7795179
Not even close. We know that adding or removing particles (as we named them electrons) to atoms change their states, thus changing them into a different element. You can't have the periodic table without understanding electrons and what they do. If you don't believe in electrons, you should equally be in opposition that we have different elements in the universe that made up our periodic table. Or you should have a different logic for explaining elements that doesn't include electrons at all.

>>7795188
>Wat. How would you know the electrons are affected if you can't even observe them?

We know that there is 'something' because there's something other than atoms which is interacting with electromagnetic fields, getting deflected, and creating charges in different places.

As other people have said, 'electron' is literally just a name.

>if you can't even observe them?

The issue here is that you are conflating 'observing' with 'seeing'. Observing is the process of gaining information about a phenomenon. It can be through 'seeing' but it doesn't necessarily have to be. When you're realizing that there's a 'thing' that is being deflected by electromagnetic fields, you are making an observation about that 'something'. Since we named it an electron, that means you can observe an electron.

>>7795189
>We know that adding or removing particles

That have never been observed. Nice hypothesis though.

>>7795092
The existence of electrons is only a theory. If we discovered the electron didn't really exist, we'd move on.

We wouldn't cut someone's head off for suggesting this.

>>7795190
>We know that there is 'something' because there's something other than atoms which is interacting with electromagnetic fields, getting deflected, and creating charges in different places.

And I'm sure you have lovely hypothesis about how that something is a magical little particle that also orbits around atoms. Maybe you should observe it before claiming it as fact

>>7795194
>electrons are real until proven false

Just like Allah!

>>7795192
> we never observed adding or removing electrons from atoms changing their states.

You either never had a basic highschool chemistry lesson or you're a complete retard.

>>7795195
>And I'm sure you have lovely hypothesis about how that something is a magical little particle that also orbits around atoms

I do (sans the word 'orbit'), but that's not what you asked. You asked me to prove that an electron has been observed, and evidently I did, seeing as how you've moved on to atomic structure.

With that, I'm gonna go to bed feeling a couple ounces heavier in the trousers ;)

>>7795183
>atoms don't exist.
tell that to anyone who survived hiroxima or nagasaqui.

>>7795199
man I never said that

>>7795172
nope.

>>7795197
>school told me it was real
>therefore it is real

Are you even trying?

>>7795198
All you've shown is that the electron hypothesis fits with observed natural phenomenon. Not a big surprise. I could say magic fairies mediate these interactions using supernatural abilities from Pluto and it would fit the data, but that doesn't mean we've observed the fairies or their supernatural powers of moving charges.

>>7795195
You do know that our ability to "observe" isn't the universal indicator of whats real and whats not right ? If that was the case we wouldn't believe in wind, EM waves or gravity, since we can't observe wind, electromagnetism or gravitational waves.

Your stand point is no different than "we cant know nuthin"

File: eae5e8f9e5fb41239f8e0b3921fd22c8.jpg (5KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x200px

>>7795204
>we can't observe wind

>>7795206
Show me the wind please. Until you can show it, it doesn't exist.

>>7795208
See >>7795137 and >>7795167

>>7795202
>I could say magic fairies mediate these interactions using supernatural abilities from Pluto and it would fit the data, but that doesn't mean we've observed the fairies or their supernatural powers of moving charges.

If those fairies behave like particles and those 'supernatural abilities from Pluto' work like the electromagnetic force, then your terminology is just as good and accurate as mine.

If we're talking about literal fairies, then that won't work. After all, real fairies are made of atoms, which you can observe with light, and we know that our ostensibly-electronic 'something' isn't an atom.

>>7795209
Well, since you can't bounce light off of the wind, it doesn't exist.
Thanks for disproving wind. Wind doesn't exist guise ! it's official now.

>>7795210
>real fairies are made of atoms

They are supernatural fairies, and they're super smart and use their powers to make you think charge is carried in particles. You can't observe them though, just like you can't observe electrons. But they are real and on Pluto until you prove me false.

>>7795209
> confusing wind and air
oh my...

>>7795213
>They are supernatural fairies, and they're super smart and use their powers to make you think charge is carried in particles.

That's unnecessarily complicated for a theory that explains the same thing as something much simpler.

The simpler theory might miss parts of the more complicated theory, but that will get figured out as soon as new observations come out which suggest that a larger theory is necessary.

>>7795216
>my theory is simpler
>therefore it is true.

Ah, then the obviously true theory is that God did it! And he works in mysterious ways.

File: get-thee-back.png (463KB, 581x332px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 581x332px

>>7795092
no mere Denial of indirect Observation, nor of Observation by Measurement, shall invalidate instrumental Observation, thus say we All

>>7795218
> god is a simpler theory
:^)

>>7795222
>what is divine simplicity

Damn, you're stupid

>>7795218
>Ah, then the obviously true theory is that God did it!

Not so fast. "God gives this particle an electric charge" doesn't necessarily say anything that disagrees with experimental evidence, but it doesn't suggest anything additional either. In other words, you could just say, "This has an electric charge" and it would be much simpler.

You're right that a 'simpler' theory doesn't necessarily mean a 'truer' theory, but if the "God gives ___" theory doesn't suggest anything more than what agrees with experimental evidence, then it's just another way of saying, "This particle is/has ___". It's a common coefficient on both sides of an equation that you can divide out without changing anything.

I feel like I should mention that the reason those "God did ___" theories are so unpopular is because they /do/ suggest additional things beyond experimental evidence, at which point they're falsified and no longer considered theories. If they behaved in the way that you describe, then I might have to label myself as a deist.

>>7795224
> tried to be ironic but couln't even give an example that makes sense.
sad...

>>7795226
>I feel like I should mention that the reason those "God did ___" theories are so unpopular is because they /do/ suggest additional things beyond experimental evidence

Whoa, it's almost like God and electrons have been observed the same number of times, and both used by idiots to explain things.

>>7795229
>Whoa, it's almost like God and electrons have been observed the same number of times

Saying "God gives electrons an electric charge" only implies that electrons have electric charge, not that 'God' has ever been observed.

You could, hypothetically speaking, start describing what 'God' is like and the mechanisms by which he 'gives' things, but then you're gonna start creating a theory that does disagree with experimental evidence. Then we're back to "electrons are particles with charge".

File: corral_top.gif (105KB, 600x429px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 600x429px

I'll just /thread it. You guys are getting baited so hard it incredible.

Pic related. Its electrons captured in a ring of iron atoms.

>not enuf proof
>need to see it/feel it
Seeing is just photons, proof they exist. Feeling is just electrons. Cannot know nuffin? Kill youreself

>>7795229
> electron theory explains everything
> god theory explains jack shit
there.

>>7795235
its just a digital representation from the measurements. let me know when its actually observed.

>>7795235
>I'll just /thread it. You guys are getting baited so hard it incredible.

I'd like to think that this is a guy trying his hand at socratic questioning. My only beef is that he's getting too pedantic about terminology that people have already defined.

It's not a bad idea to revisit fundamentals once in awhile. I have no doubt that OP does accept that electrons exist.

>>7795237
>just digital representations
So are these words I type right now. Does that make them less real?

Will you fight or perish like a dog

File: LiNjE.jpg (591KB, 700x6826px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 700x6826px

>>7795233
>Saying "God gives electrons an electric charge" only implies that electrons have electric charge

You mean atoms, right? Electrons have never been observed so I'm not going to try to fit them into my theory.

Also, pic related.

If you believe in something just because it 1) explains something 2) is based on indirect observation and 3) is simple. Then you probably already are a classical theist

>>7795236
God theory explains literally everything. Pic related.

>>7795235
Methodology used? Or did the scientists just assume the visualization was wrong unless is had them?

>>7795107
so is there ONE wave function of the electron or several ?

this is a serious question which has been asked by Penrose I think. and nobody has the answer...

>>7795242
>methodology
Its an STM. They literally used electron tunneling to make the image.

Keep crying you need more proof niggahs. You'll all perish like the dogs you are

>>7795242
>Electrons have never been observed so I'm not going to try to fit them into my theory.

Aww that's no fun. You and me already proved that electrons have been observed. You can't just backtrack like that! We were having a nice talk about balancing equally accurate theories with varying levels of complexity.

>If you believe in something just because it 1) explains something 2) is based on indirect observation and 3) is simple. Then you probably already are a classical theist

My certainty with something has absolutely nothing to do with how simplistic it is. You gave me an example earlier about what if God gave electrons a charge, and I showed you why a complicated theory like that ends up suggesting additional things besides the nature of electrons which do not agree with experimental evidence.

Also, measuring deflections in charges that respond to electromagnetic fields is a direct observation, not an indirect one.

File: 1448777376791.jpg (49KB, 450x445px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 450x445px

>>7795107
>>7795118
>>7795124
>>7795125
>>7795130
>>7795140
>>7795148
>>7795189
>>7795190
>>7795235


if you have faith in physics, you believe that there is a the renormalization group floating around, also known as GOD by undergrads on /sci/, always renormalizing bare masses and other abstract parameters of elementary particles.


>science is truth, r-r-right guize ?

>>7795244
No two electrons can occupy the same energy state at the same time because they are fermions. Any fermionic particle must adhere to the exclusion principle, which is also atoms with uneven number of protons. Would you then argue there is only one hydrogen atom?

>>7795235
>>7795245

>Its electrons captured in a ring of iron atoms.

Where are the electrons in the image?

>>7795247
>You and me already proved that electrons have been observed

See >>7795202

>what if God gave electrons a charge

Never suggested that.

>>7795248
> criticizes science for not being true
> demands scientific proof
:^)

>>7795251
The waves inside the ring is the electron. Or rather its probability density function magnitude squared, which means when measured it was actually there (i.e. you performed a measurement so the quantum system collapsed). If you do this everywhere in this confined region, you can obtain the wave mode the electron is in. Its simple quantum physics really.

>>7795253
>confusing empiricism with scientism

>>7795252
But, assuming it agrees with experiment, your magical fairy hypothesis is just electrons and forces re-branded with different names.

I'm feeling like I've explained this pretty well. If you're actually trying to do socratic questioning, this is the part where you find some other ambiguity to capitalize on. Backtracking needlessly because you didn't understand what I said doesn't interest me as much.

>>7795255
Any empirical proof we give you, you will claim is not scientific proof.
Any scientific proof we give you, you will claim is not empirical.

Kill yourself.

>>7795254
>The waves inside the ring is the electron

Okay, so where is the electron? Oh, your shitty hypothetical particle doesn't even matched observed data? What a shame.

>>7795255
You got no proof for both. We can't know nuthin.

>>7795260
Electrons are waves you troglodyte. Or were you so stupid you thought they were particles?

Perishing like the dog you are

>>7795258
>But, assuming it agrees with experiment, your magical fairy hypothesis is just electrons and forces re-branded with different names.

Nope, they work VERY differently to achieve the same observed phenomena.

>>7795260
> I can't observe photons or bounce light off of them
> Therefore photons don't exist
:^)

>>7795262
>Electrons are waves

Waves of what? How do you quantify a wave into integers around an atom? Why don't these waves flow away?

>>7795263
>Nope, they work VERY differently to achieve the same observed phenomena.

That's risky business you're pulling right now. The reason why a simpler theory of electrons is better in this case is because the terminology literally just describes what you observe.

I'm cool with a 'magic fairy' explanation for how ions and chemical reactions work. However, if you choose to extend that theory past what experiment agrees with, then you no longer have a theory and suddenly the simpler electron-based theory has a huge advantage (considering that it's still actually a theory)

>>7795264
I agree. I don't know the nature of light. See >>7795179

You're the only one claiming it is made of magical particles

>>7795268

See >>7795229
Simple doesn't mean true. Explanatory power doesn't mean true.

>>7795259
>responding to it
>wondering why it continues
It's the same as a kid throwing a tantrum for attention.

>>7795270
>Simple doesn't mean true. Explanatory power doesn't mean true.

If you're going to pull out the word 'true', then this discussion has to go a completely different direction. Science never asserts absolute certainty with anything. Explanatory power means /better/ theories because theories are explanations.

>>7795270
Nope. We have working models and approximations that make sense for the phenomenon of light that we call photons. You are the dumb fuck who thinks its magic because you hate science.

>>7795272
>Science never asserts absolute certainty with anything.

Never said it did. But damn, at least observe something before claiming it exists.

>Explanatory power means /better/ theories because theories are explanations.

See >>7795242

Then God is the best theory because it explains literally everything.

>>7795274
See >>7795202

>>7795275
>Then God is the best theory because it explains literally everything.

Unless you extend the 'God theory' beyond experimental evidence, it's just synonymous with what we observe and thus, totally unnecessary. If you do extend it beyond experimental evidence, it's easily falsified.

>Never said it did. But damn, at least observe something before claiming it exists.

Man that's no fun. We already showed that electrons are observed.

Anyway, I've gotta go to bed. You ruined my sleep schedule, but this was fun. Later.

>>7795278
>it's just synonymous with what we observe and thus, totally unnecessary

Just like electrons.

> Man that's no fun. We already showed that electrons are observed.

Nope, see >>7795276

>>7795276
You know that observation is not the only factor right ? You know that we can actually measure it right ?

Please show me your measurement and data you got from your "magic fairies mediate these interactions using supernatural abilities from Pluto" to show you that you're not relentlessly shitposting.

>>7795279
>Just like electrons.

Exactly! It's just a name! Nothing more!

For real! Bed this time!

>>7795280
First show me your electron.

>>7795282
On which medium do you want to see it ?

>>7795281
>It's just a name!

Then there is no particle. It's actually God actualizing through a single eternal action outside of time.

>What is a synchrotron ?

>>7795281
You're like a string theoretist. Claiming that all of reality works by some magical little things that have never been observed.

>>7795092
http://www.merriam-webster.com

verb | ob·serve | \əb-ˈzərv\

definition 4b: to make a scientific observation of

noun | ob·ser·va·tion | \ˌäb-sər-ˈvā-shən, -zər-\

definition 2a: an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments.

So by definition, we do not need to "see" something to observe it, merely note that it happens, without regards to a specific type of measurement.

Many things, like large objects, can be observed by measuring the levels of light they emanate, i.e. "seeing" them. Other things require indirect, more artificial means of measurement.

Such means allow us to "observe" things like gravity and black holes.

And electrons.

Check & mate, trolzor faggot, but nice job making a shitstorm while you were at it.

>>7795312
see : >>7795237

>>7795318
>digital representation

Yeah, and your vision is a chemical representation of things you can "see".


Am I missing something, or do you have this lofty philosophy of the world I cannot fathom?

>>7795322
we can observe photons with our eyes, and we can observe matter by bouncing light on it. there is no method for viewing these hypothetical electrons that you can put on the table and say "there it is"

>>7795322
>Am I missing something

Yes, something quite important in fact:

>[math] \mathcal{YOU'RE ~~BEING ~~~TROLLED} [/math]

>>7795323
You dense motherfucker.

Eyes are just another "instrument" mentioned in Webster's definition above. What you "see" is a representation of what's in front of your eyes, converted to a neural and chemical signal. As previously stated, one can "observe" things without "seeing" them; the definition in >>7795312 states no requirement that you "see" something to observe it.

Besides what about blind physicists, like Kent Cullers? You saying a fuckin' astronomer can't observe shit because he's blind?

Get you ass outta here. If you make me shitstorm, I'll do it down your throat.

>>7795326
It is a SCIENCE board, trying to give the benefit of the doubt, here.

>>7795331
Benefit of the doubt ended about 100 posts back. This is either a retard you will never get through to or the same shitposter who made that "can you explain gravity...." thread earlier.

>>7795333
People never really defined "observe" properly, although the faggot OP clearly wanted us to believe he was talking about "sight" and "vision". This resulted in the previous shitstorm.

So I had 2 choices:

1. Give the benefit of the doubt that there's a misunderstanding, and maybe I can clear it up and the OP can learn something. (OP's still a faggot for failing to notice this misunderstanding himself and causing a shitstorm)

or 2. Counter troll the OP by arguing semantics over "see" and "vision", which were included in his definition of "observe". However this clears up nothing, and in case the misunderstanding was accidental, nobody's learned anything.

>>7795092
seeing is believing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#/media/File:Cyclotron_motion_wider_view.jpg

>>7795338
>So I had 2 choices:

You had three choices, the only correct one was yo hide the thread and move on.

>(OP's still a faggot for failing to notice this misunderstanding himself and causing a shitstorm)

It was intentional.

>>7795339
>seeing is believing
lol nope faggot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

But seriously, nice pic tho.

>>7795340
>3rd choice
True, but that doesn't help anyone more than the 2nd choice. I took the only choice that had any possible learning outcome.

I mean, this is a science board. Isn't learning good?

File: 1423499179605.jpg (99KB, 944x712px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 944x712px

>if I define obsereve in my own no scientific way it means we had never observed this electron
>checkm8 atheists
Are there any mods even left here?

>>7795168
Carbon atoms IIRC. I think IBM made it.

File: cath8.jpg (4KB, 240x155px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 240x155px

>this thread
>implying that seeing something is the only way to observe something

Meh whatever, BEHOLD ELECTRONS OP

File: 1449500670030.png (66KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 400x400px

Jesus Christ. I hate when salesmen of metaphysics come here. /sci/ sometimes you just have to swallow your pride as soldiers of reason and just them to fuck off. This thread has over 100 replies. He got what he wanted a long time ago.

>>7795424
O come on, you are in shitpost central what do you expect? Just search through the autistic/serious responses and you can learn things.

>>7795456
This. Learn2filter

>>7795092
Terrible bait

File: lolicatgirls.jpg (10KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 184x184px

>>7795092
Well OP, our eyes haven't never even been observed. Who's to say our eyes aren't even real? I mean mirrors aren't even real!

>>7795107
>>7795116
>whats a faggot

>>7795242
>Energy cannot be it
>What is displacement
>What is gravity

File: 1452833948137.jpg (126KB, 720x478px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 720x478px

This is the worst thread on /sci/

>>7795735>>7795424
>>7795422

/sci/ has just too many highschoolers who are ruining it with their lack of knowledge in physics and mathematics.

File: image.png (99KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x1136px

>>7795141
>>7795141
>>7795141
>Tfw on mobile

I've never seen you, prove that you exist

File: 1440056655608.jpg (45KB, 716x717px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 716x717px

>>7795092

>>7795282
Define "observation" so I can fulfill your request.

>>7795326
I honestly don't think we are. OP's question is a good one. How do we prove electrons actually exist, besides using the "facts-that-fit-our-theory" explanation? Is there a direct way we could observe a single electron?

>>7795267
READ
A FUCKING
BOOK

Alternatively: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S7-PDF6Vzc

>>7795860
This.

ITT: We confuse the map with the territory

File: russell__s_teapot_by_divinedesign-d2xmx17.jpg (152KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1024x683px

>>7796316
>Is there a direct way we could observe a single electron?

Nope, they are by definition too small to interact with a photon. Scientists have basically defined a Russell's teapot

>>7796552
That wave is made of string. What are electron waves made of?

>>7795250
>No two electrons can occupy the same energy state at the same time because they are fermions
unless they bind with phonons to form cooper pairs

>>7795572
you, faggot

it's just a model. it doesn't matter whether they exist. i don't think many people religiously think they exist, or care that they do

>>7795271
you mean yourself? kill yourself fagfuck

>be me
>lost gf to gym rat
>breakup over the phone
>cant stop thinking of her
>friends try to cheer me up
>"There's plenty more fish in the sea!"
>there are no fish left in the sea
>all the fish in all the oceans fell for this bait

>>7795184
>rip-off
>decades later
this kid's autistic

>>7796783
if you have so much belief in what is written in books, then read the bible.

>>7795092
>low tier b8
>140+ replies
Yep I'm on /sci/ alright.

>>7796717
Electrons interact with photons though...

>>7796717
Literally the reason anything happens is because electrons interct with light.

>>7795092
42

>>7797020
>>7796930
Oh good, then I'm sure you can procure me a photograph of a lone electron

my sides just left their valence orbit

>>7795107
>>7795116
God did it.

>>7796726
Energy, just ask Einstein.

File: 1381257419611.gif (301KB, 270x271px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 270x271px

>mfw /sci/ is falling for a classic "you cannot no nuffin"

>>7797176
>observing means seeing
Kek I thought philosophers where all autistic about definitions.

ITT:

>What is a model?

>>7795092
>an electron has never been observed.
>humans somehow able to build electron microscopes.
>calling them retarded for believing something they "haven't seen"

Way to go retarded mate.

>>7795092
Also: what is a cloud chamber

File: Alpha_particle_and_electrons_from_a_thorium_rod_in_a_cloud_chamber.jpg (303KB, 1162x608px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1162x608px

>>7797176
Here's a photograph you won't accept of many of them, you moron.

File: cop.jpg (18KB, 310x233px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 310x233px

ALL RIGHT, I'VE SEEN ENOUGH.

All of you, back to /b/ until you learn to recognize obvious fucking bait.

Seriously, how does this thread have so many fucking replies? Aren't you people supposed to be fucking smart? IT'S BAIT, YOU IDIOTS!

>>7797824
But, he's right...

>>7797848
nope, you're just retarded :^)

>>7795148
>zackefron
XxX

kke

>>7797894
Faggotron

File: Stock-Lightning-stock-17004503-1280-800[1].jpg (105KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1280x800px

>>7795092
>an electron has never been observed

Lol gravity has never been observed but you believe in it

>>7795167
But that's from a scanning tunneling microscope. No bouncing light was involved.

>>7797427
Related: Isomorphism

this video pretty much disproves electrons. stay woke sheeple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjg0XlZ0Uv4

>>7795107
>>7795116
>the real honest answer
>We just don't know what it is
>but we know how it works

>taking this bait seriously

/sci/ is pretty autistic

>>7799028
Using the term 'autism' for anything that isn't a legitimate medical diagnosis is peak autism.

Faggot.

>>7795092
I was under the impression that out of all sections of physics, QED was one of the best understood and accepted theories

>>7799028
>You came here to post this.

>>7795092

>Clarke's first law
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

>Clarke's second law
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

>Clarke's third law
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

>>7799085
who is dirac

>>7796802
I laughed

>>7799085
It is. OP is just retarded.

In the progression of developing a theory, the developer operates under the assumption that the theory is wrong. Tries to prove it wrong. Unless so is done, then the theory is 'elegant' enough to be discerned, let's say. So a theory, is no fact, it is simply a not-yet discrepent statement, and is prone to falsehood. So no m8, no one has seen the electron, but it's good enough to interpret chemical reactions and conductive properties. It's called the philosophy of science. Read Richard Fynman's notes.

File: 1443917634075.jpg (56KB, 720x501px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x501px

>>7795092
The fact of the matter is that the math behind the science works and works in real world applications. You can hate on the electron all you want, but be thankful for the actual science behind the electron next you get on your phone/computer to use the Internet and deny the actual science behind electricity and electrons.

>>7801248
>science is good because it makes me love pleasure more and hate pain more.

This sounds like that asswipe who argues lipids in cell membranes.


Tell us how good the prequels were and go back to /tv/

>>7797824
not responding is futile at this point, many quick responses is best

>>7797848
I don't think so.

>>7797894
what's a kke

>>7798030
have those been observed?

>>7798057
Gravity is a lie made up to sell airplanes.

>>7798183
but there were photons exchanged somewhere

>>7798185
how?

>>7797176
How about you stick a knife in a toaster and see if any electrons do work right through you? If they're not real, nothing will happen right? :^)

>>7801319
seems like a good idea

>>7801319
Meh, 120V is nothing.
Although the extra surface area from the knife might help.
Just gotta make sure it's grounded and you have your other hand on the outside.
And no GFI, those are for wimps.

>>7801441
As expected of Americans to stick things in electrical equipment.

>>7801445
Better than being so afraid of the wall currents that you have to use weaponized foot stabbing plugs.

File: 1290149411538.jpg (392KB, 1600x1204px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1600x1204px

>>7801441
>Meh, 120V is nothing.
american electrical safety

>>7801454
Yeah, those plugs sure look American, retard.

>>7801454
>1290149411538.jpg
Are you an oldfag?

>>7801468
>2010
>oldfag

>>7801468
Sadly all the oldfags left to that lemon party site.

>>7801471
2010 is fucking ancient, they didn't even put their ketchup in the fridge back then.

>>7801448
The plugs are sharp because they're not allowed to have knives.

>>7801441
Grounded or not, doesn't make any difference in this case you dumbfuck, that's not how grounding works, you're not getting shocked by the chassis itself.

>>7802720
Closing the circuit makes a hell of a difference at 60 Hz. Your body's capacitance is not that high. And apparently toasters are deliberately not grounded for this very reason.

>>7795092
We have never observed OP but know he is a faggot.

Edit: Finally observed OP, still a faggot.

>>7802872
The point that I'm making doesn't have anything to do with body impedance. Grounding is used in home appliances so as to protect someone from a shock caused when touching a exposed part of a certain device (generally the chassis) that may be connected to the mains due to a failed insulation or some other sort of issue.
Like you said, some toasters don't have a ground connection because the only normal scenario in which someone would stick something inside of them would be when digging for food scraps, which requires the toaster in one hand and a fork/whatever in the other hand: if the chassis is grounded in this case current would pass straight through your heart, which is much worse than the regular hand-feet shock.
Sticking a knife inside a toaster doesn't require you to be holding the toaster in your hand, so it doesn't matter if the chassis is grounded or not, you would receive a hand-feet shock anyway because you're touching the mains with your feet on the ground.

>>7802969
Is your home Hendo hoverboard ready, or is it just flooded? Because otherwise the ground your feet are touching isn't going to be much of an electrical ground.

>>7802994
Go stick a fork inside an outlet and see what happens them.
Plus, you realize that you're actually derailing from the point that I'm trying to make, right?

>google electrical grounding
>apparently soil is conductive
>10 ohms to 1000ohms expected
Jesus. If I bury a LiFePo will it explode underneath the ground?

>>7795140
but what does "negative" mean.how do you know there is something called a shell or a nucleus or an atom.what if instead of being like a sphere like everyone says it is,its shaped like a horse,for example. pls answer!!!

bamp

Why did /sci/ fall so hard for this?

This thread made my week, I really need to get out more.

>>7803015
It's not like plenty of people haven't done this.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572778

>>7803165
Surely that figure needs some distance dimensions.

>>7803165
Maybe if it's wet soil?

>>7795120

Isn't that one of those things they use particle accelerators to fire through a metal plate and observe the hole?

>>7803165
You might need another battery type, wikipedo says those don't explode when you short them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate#Automotive

>>7803787
you chicken?

>>7803787
DO IT FAGGOT

>>7803799
>>>/b/

>>7795120
We don't need to observe a damn electron because we know there's a damn electron not trough comprehensible shape but rather as an reality in this universe - something billions of utensils we use would feel in its way.

>>7803802
Don't shitpost, this is Important Science.

Which side is the hot side?

>>7795248
But in your logic then you can use philosophical ideas to sustain other parts of reaity.. while you clearly can't...
But you can use scientific formulas to sustain and explain other aspects of reality before even researching them trough any other means...

Everything in our life, every word is a concept but you have to go beyond it and visualize the same thing the community is visualizing when is thinking about that word... instead you imagine nothing when you hear the word electron and blame science for your lack of understanding.

That's the reason you go study STEM and not Literature, Philosophy or w/e bullshit.

>>7803810
Don't tell me you're actually going to do it.

>>7803764
pls

>>7803810
left

>>7803810
What country are you in?

>>7803810
right

>>7803810
middle

>>7803821
must be the same country as >>7801454

>>7795135
>scientists have ever observed one.
Doesn't the term electron come from the field of science anyways?

Scientists were the ones to describe it, and other scientists were the ones to believe it. Thus it has reached common acceptance.

>>7795092

you cann no nuffin

>>7795151
You can observe things without using your eyes, its like seeing a plane on a radar

We don't give a shit if and how an electron exists because the hypothesis of them existing sufficiently explains any phenomenon that their existence would explain.

Now please, PLEASE fuck off this board

File: electron.jpg (40KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 620x350px

>>7795092
Go away.

>>7798993
Can't you kind of say that about everything? Isn't knowing how something works the same as knowing what it is?

>>7804006
>saw a photograph of electron
>implying the nature of electron(or the unknown element) wouldnt change as you shoot light in it.
>muh science
0/10

>>7795092
>the sun can't be looked at directly
>you still believe in it anyway